Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Objection 4 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing

For a longer list of objections and replies to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing, see the following page, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/p/objections-and-replies.html

4. ObjectionNabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic (hereby LQA) claims that the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means a spermatozoon and thus a miracle.
Transcript of Video: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc

LQA's claim is as follows; i) Anagrams of a word are synonymous or at the very least relational with each other and thus can provide the meaning of that word; ii) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the properties of a spermatozoon; iii) Therefore, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon. iv) Therefore, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an means a spermatozoon v) Therefore, the Qur’an has miraculous scientific foreknowledge.

Reply: For a PDF version of the following response, visit http://www.scribd.com/doc/208156085

“One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that. But the difficulty is to remove the prejudice which stands in the way of doing so.”
~ (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 340)[1]

Contents
I. Background to LQA’s Argument
II. Summary of LQA’s Argument
III. Initial Impression
IV. Objections to LQA's Argument
     i) Logical Objections
          1) The conclusions are non-sequitur
          2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization
          3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle
          4) The Argument is Self-Refuting;         
     ii) Epistemological Objections
          5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions
          6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;
               6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
               6.2) The homunculus Counter-example
               6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum          
     iii) Empirical Objections                   
          7) The argument equally applies to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid';
          8) The argument ignores relevant evidence.
V. Conclusion

            While LQA's case is not a direct objection to any of the specific arguments provided in Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing (hereby EQMAN), it, at the very least, is meant to negate one of EQMAN's central points; which concluded that the most reasonable understanding of the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) in light of all the relevant evidence is that it signifies seminal fluid as per a 7th century understanding and not that of a sperm cell as per the modern understanding.

            On a side note, an interesting development regarding this topic is that as of September 2013, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, the person EQMAN was directed against, has repudiated and withdrawn his paper on the topic. He has also referenced EQMAN in his recent article regarding his retraction.[2] Thus, it is anticlimactic that other apologists, such as LQA, who came to the scene to defend Hamza’s currently rejected views, would also not follow suit.

            Nonetheless, the post will begin by providing the background details for the present argument; after which a detailed analysis of and objections to the argument will be presented.

I. Background to LQA's Argument

            LQA has already been subject to two previous responses on this site.[3] [4] He attempted to conclude that the term "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the 7th century text of Qur’an, signifies the modern understanding of sperm cells. However the two previous posts had demonstrated that LQA’s conclusion does not follow from his premises and that he had failed to holistically address the presented counter-arguments and consequently ignored relevant evidences.

            Much in the same fashion, LQA can be seen here mischaracterizing a counter-argument and then continuing with his new claims all the while ignoring relevant evidences to the contrary.

            The following post will take a holistic approach rather than a point-by-point rebuttal; wherein LQA’s argument will be analyzed for its logical validity, hidden assumptions and empirical veridicality.

II. Summary of LQA’s Argument
           
            For LQA’s video, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwQAytS5wg
            For a Transcript of LQA’s video, see: http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc

(NOTE: It is recommended that the Readers watch LQA’s video or see its transcript before reading the following refutation.)

            LQA begins by displaying the ‘argument’ of the critics (at timestamp 00:26)

0:00:26.5 So I am going to speak about the word NUTFAH and what actually a NUTFAH means. Now what critics of the Qur'an say is the following; they say "The Qur'an contains X". So X is a particular word; in this case NUTFATAN. In the 21st century, X is translated as Y. So what they says is, for example, NUTFATAN is translated as a sperm or sperm cell. 0:01:00.0

            LQA has already begun on a mistaken note. The argument, which LQA characterized as being from the “critics”, was taken from a blogpost of the present author.[5] Contrary to what LQA stated, the argument is not from a “critic” of the Qur’an but rather it was the characterization of a fallacious argument used by Muslim apologists. It is not entirely clear how LQA could have mistaken the two. Given that LQA is in the habit of hiding away links to the work of his critics, he has misled (perhaps intentionally) his audience with such a mischaracterization.

            Regardless of the mischaracterization, LQA proceeds with his argument which can be summarized in the following manner.

1) If "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) meant spermatazoon, then Quran is a miracle.

2) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means spermatazoon
2.1) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon.
2.1.1) Anagrams are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other.
2.1.2) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to a spermatozoon.

Conclusion) Therefore, Qur’an is a miracle

            LQA’s justification for premise 1 is the charge of scientific foreknowledge which, for the sake of the argument, is acceptable.

            LQA’s justification for premise 2, found in 2.1.1, 2.1.2 & 2.1, is perhaps the most notorious part of his video. LQA then makes the leap, quite visibly, to his ultimate desire that the meaning of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) be sperm cells and thus the Qur’an a miracle.

III. Initial Impression

            The ‘Science in the Qur’an’ lobby has been engaged in the same task for the previous four decades; namely trying to fit an elephant through a pinhole.

            At least as of recently, many Muslims are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that such a task is not feasible.[6] Hamza Tzortzis himself is an example when he states the following;

            “Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself.” [2]

            However, less sophisticated Muslims still resort to the technique of ‘pretending that the pinhole is large enough’.

            Such apologists as Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya were once in favor of directly reinterpreting the verses to suit their wishful thinking. When this was not sufficient, those like Hamza tried to base his reinterpretations by unjustifiably deriving meanings from the cognates of Qur’anic words. Since the release of EQMAN, this method too has been shown to be insufficient. As a consequence, LQA arrives with the new method wherein he pretends anagrams of a word, on top of the cognates, are synonymous/relational and are then used to derive contrived and suitable meanings. The need for such Muslim apologists to make the pinhole as large as possible could not be more apparent.

IV. Objections to LQA's Argument

            This post will outline the various flaws that have resulted from LQA's lack of critical thinking and negligence of crucial evidence. The objections presented are;

i) Logical Objections
          1) The conclusions are non-sequitur
          2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization
          3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle
          4) The Argument is Self-Refuting;         
ii) Epistemological Objections
          5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions
          6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;
               6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
               6.2) The homunculus Counter-example
               6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum
iii) Empirical Objections      
          7) The argument equally applies to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid';
          8) The argument ignores relevant evidence.

i) Logical Objections

1) The conclusions are non-sequitur.

            Consider LQA’s primary argument again;

2.1.1) Anagrams are synonymous or relational in meaning with each other.
2.1.2) Some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) have meanings that are attributable to the properties of a spermatozoon.
2.1) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to describe a spermatozoon.
2) "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means sperm cell

            This set of statements form the crux of LQA’s video yet he fails to justify his central conclusions. Firstly, no justification is given for (2.1.1) as to how anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each other. Secondly, no justification is given for (2.1) as to how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) becomes the best Arabic word to describe a spermatozoon merely because he derived contrived meanings from some anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah). Lastly and most importantly, no justification is given for (2) as to how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means a spermatozoon merely because LQA retrospectively concluded it is the best word to describe a sperm cell. Therefore, the 3 main conclusions in LQA’s argument are entirely non-sequitur.

            LQA’s conclusion in (2.1) asserts that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the best Arabic word in the 7th century to signify the idea of a spermatozoon. The reasoning he provides is that he derived four contrived definitions that are attributable to a “sperm cell” from the anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah). The four specific definitions will be discussed later.

            LQA’s argument begs the question of what exactly the objective rules are for declaring a certain word as the “best word” to denote a concept; and for this LQA provides no explicit answer. Thus, one is left to presume that the “best-word” is those with anagrams onto which contrived meanings can be imposed upon. What is then the justification for this assertion? No answer is to be found in LQA’s video and thereby one is left with nothing more than the arbitrary and subjective line of LQA’s reasoning. Therefore, this conclusion is a non-sequitur.

            The last of LQA’s conclusion is in (2); where he implies that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the Qur’an, means, without any doubt, “a sperm cell”. This is concluded from the unjustified conclusion in (2.1), which itself is concluded from another unjustified assertion in (2.1.1).

            In other words, the meaning of a 7th century usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “sperm cell” is not entailed even if it is the case that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is the “best word” to describe a spermatozoon. Therefore, LQA’s central conclusion exists as the product of a three-fold non-sequitur line of reasoning.
           
2) The Argument commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization

            Premise (2.1.1) states that anagrams of a word can provide meanings for each of the anagrams. LQA merely asserts this by providing a solitary example;

0:02:38.0 Now here we have a root, the AYN-MEEM-LAM. And from this root we get the concept of action. Now there is a phenomenon in Arabic as well as other semitic languages which is the base letters of a word; is that you use the same letters but you rearrange them. And what it does is give related meaning. And sometimes even, information about another word that has the same letters. Now let's say for example somebody did something; he tried to build something for example but he had no knowledge. That would be a crime. Here in Australia if you were to build a house without having the proper knowledge, the proper background, this would be an offence; because it is endangering people's lives. So what do you need; there is something you need with action. And that is I'LM, knowledge. So let us, here, that A'mal and I'lm are related. You can't have one without the other; even when it comes to religious matters. We want to learn some rules, we might learn how to pray, but there is not point if one is not acting. And actually if you don't act it is a big sin. So there is a relationship between these two. Same letters, different order and they give related meanings. 0:04:09.0

            From this example, LQA tries to derive a universal rule that one can use anagrams to provide meanings or explanations of each other. Formally, the reasoning used by LQA commits the hasty generalization fallacy. It does not follow that since the anagrams of a few words can be arbitrarily related to each other that such a linguistic nature of the proposed relationship is a universal rule.

            In fact, such a warning is even admitted by Muslim linguists who have expounded on this matter. Consider the statements below taken from one of the few English sites that discuss this linguistic word play; (see http://www.learnarabiconline.com/greater-etymology.shtml)

“There is [a] type of etymology ... called Greater Etymology (الاشتقاق الكبير) that recognizes the common meanings words with different base letters share ... This is by no means a mature science ... There are no rules, no systematic methodologies except those we impose ourselves, and no observations are to be taken as universally applicable regulations.”

            Incidentally, “no rules” and “no systematic methodologies” is a perfect description of LQA’s video. He has merely imposed his preconceived conclusion on to the anagrams in order to contrive the meaning of a spermatozoon. Thus it is comical to think that LQA is utilizing an admittedly “immature” idea with no rules, no system, no methodology in order to “predict” his preconceived interpretations. One can only wonder at the amount of desperation behind such an attempt.

            Regardless, given that this is not a universal rule, there is no need to press on the issue further. One can easily look at the examples given in the website above as well as LQA’s video and come to the realization that the so-called relationship between the anagrams are extremely arbitrary and/or subjective. For example, in website above, 2 anagrams with meanings “baking” and “eagle” respectively are related by saying an eagle is “hasty” bird while a baked good “hastens” to break apart. Such are the degree of arbitrariness involved in this linguistic puzzle; an exercise far removed from reality.

            Similarly, in LQA’s video, the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is compared with an anagram having the meaning of “death/obstruction”. In order to relate the two, he states the following;

the root of NUTFAH has the root NOON-TA-FA. Now those three letters, if we were to rearrange them we get the following patterns. ... the TA-FA-NOON. Words on this root mean, death and obstruction. That is very interesting because we know sperm have a hard time when they enter the female body. There are so many different obstructions in the way that cause problems for it and all the sperm cells will die; or one could enter into the egg. So either one survives or none survives Subhanallah. 0:05:48.1

            Think about the amount of arbitrariness involved. “Death” is related to “sperm” because it (like all organic matter) “dies”. “Obstruction” is related to “sperm” because it, like all living things, has some “obstructions” in its life cycle.

            This arbitrary and un-objective methodology of letter-play and guesswork is LQA”s grand plan to “miraculize” the Qur’an. It cannot be stated with enough emphasis that LQA’s assertion (2.1.1) of anagrams providing meanings for each other is a blatant non-sequitur on top of a hasty generalization fallacy.  

            On a side note, regarding this letter-play guesswork methodology, it may be of benefit to heed to the Wittgensteinian view of language. He is of the view that meaning in language is not prior to its usage but rather the meaning should be derived from the way the words are used.

            While the topic of phonosemantics (the relation between sound and meaning) is an important question in linguistics and the origin of language, it is also important to keep in mind the view that language is a product of human usage and thus it is not entirely sensible to abstract language away into a world of formulas and theories; especially when this is done by ignoring the way in which the language is regularly used. LQA is guilty of such a pseudo-intellectual line of reasoning when he ignores how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) was used in antiquity in favor or his anagram-guessing-game. To quote Wittgenstein again, “One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that.[1]
           
3) The Argument commits the fallacy of Undistributed Middle

            The fallacy of undistributed middle is one of the most common examples of false reasoning present in many of the ‘Science in the Qur’an claims’[7] [8]. The same is repeated by LQA when he makes the following argument;

1) The Qur’an mentions "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)
2) “Spermatazoon” can be denoted using "نُطْفَة" (nutfah)
Therefore, The Qur’an mentions “spermatozoon”.

            Such an argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle. LQA would have to establish that any and every usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) denotes a “spermatozoon”. However, this is patently false as it is even documented in Lisan al-Arab that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) was meant to signify “seminal fluid” and thus consistent with a 7th century understanding of human reproduction.

            Therefore, LQA’s attempt to signify "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “spermatozoon” does not in and of itself entail that the Qur’anic usage has the same meaning; especially given the evidence from Lisan al-Arab.

4) The argument is self-refuting

            The following objection is a result of considering the logical consequences of (2.1.1) and (2.1).

            Consider a word “ABC”; if “ABC” can mean “X”  because its anagrams, “CBA”, “BAC”, “CAB”, etc are related to “X”, then it can also be said that “CBA” means “X” because its anagrams “ABC”, “BAC”, “CBA” etc are related to “X”. Likewise, for each of the other anagrams.

            Similarly, if anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can provide the meaning of “spermatazoon” to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), then "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can provide the same meaning to its anagrams. Thus, any one of the anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) listed by LQA can mean a spermatozoon.


             Therefore, if LQA’s anagram-guessing-game is valid, then the 4 anagrams of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) listed by LQA can denote a sperm-cell and thus, using LQA’s methodology, each of the 4 words can be considered as the “best word” to signify a spermatozoon. However, given that LQA insisted that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), and no other, was the “best word” and since his own argument has produced other “best words”, LQA’s argument is self-refuting.

ii) Epistemological Objections

5) Hidden Unjustified Assumptions

            Hidden assumptions are at times difficult to detect. The same can be said in LQA’s case. Consider when LQA asks what the best 7th century Arabic word is to denote a spermatozoon. In asking such a question, LQA has already assumed that there exists a word in 7th century Arabic that denotes “spermatozoon” and that it is merely a matter of discovering it. He further assumes that it is sensible to identify non-existing concepts using words with alternate meanings.

            Such a question is the equivalent of asking what the best 12th or 13th century English word to denote a “biological cell” is. It has first of all assumed that such a word even exists or that it makes sense to believe that the concept of a “biological cell”, which did not exist in the 12th or 13th century, can be identified using words that had different meanings.

            If a sophist wanted, he could present subjective and arbitrary reasons to claim that words like “cell” or “prison” or “block” etc can signify a “biological cell” in the 12th or 13th century. Yet if such a person were to present any ancient text that has the word “cell” or “prison”, in a metaphorical phrase such as “the prisons of a human being”, and claim it divinely refers to the  biological cells of the body; it would be rejected as stupidity.

            Now consider the following Qur’anic example. In Sura 12:19, there is a phrase which states, “And there came a caravan” (وَجَآءَتْ سَيَّارَةٌ). The 7th century Arabic term used to mean “caravan” is “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”). Incidentally, “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) means “car” in the 21st century. Perhaps, if LQA wanted to he can claim that Qur'an in Sura 12:19 uses “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) to mean a “car”. He could even use his anagram-guessing-game to say that the angrams of “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) are related to the definition of a “car”, which, given the arbitrary nature of LQA’s methodology, should be fairly easy.

            Would it now be reasonable to claim that the Qur’an was mentioning a “car” instead of a “caravan” in the ancient deserts of the Middle East or North Africa? Likewise, LQA’s attempt to do the same with "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is equally unreasonable.

6) LQA’s Methodology is Arbitrary & Circular;

            Consider LQA’s methodology again. Take a word; have a preconceived “meaning”; list the anagrams of the word; impose the desired meaning onto the anagrams. Then, conclude that the imposed meaning has been derived from the anagrams.


            Thus, LQA takes the word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah); he wants it to mean “spermatozoon”; he lists the following anagrams “نفط” (na-fa-ta), “طنف” (ta-na-fa), “طفن” (ta-fa-na), “فطن” (fa-ta-na); with the following meanings respectively; “movement of fluid with force”, “to protrude”, “death/obstruction”, “to be intelligent, skillful”.

            He then imposes the concept of a “spermatozoon” on to these definitions however arbitrarily as possible (to see his reasoning in full, see transcript from timestamp 04:00 to 09:30 http://pastebin.com/48NpwJEc). Then he finally concludes that his imposed meaning has been derived. Such a line of reasoning is as circular as it gets.

            If one were to grant the validity of this anagram-guessing-game for the sake of the argument, then what is most striking about LQA’s line of reasoning is its ultimately arbitrary or subjective or selective nature. Clearly there is nothing in the 4 anagrams LQA presented that specifically and directly references a “spermatozoon”. Instead LQA is forced to artificially impose the concept of “spermatozoon” on to the 4 anagrams. Hence, LQA’s argument is circular in nature as it boils down to LQA deriving the concept of “spermatozoon” from the 4 anagram via imposing the concept of “spermatozoon” onto the 4 anagrams

6.1) The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

            However, if one were to analyze the 4 anagrams without LQA’s circular line of reasoning; clearly there is nothing to suggest that i) “forcefully moving liquid” + ii) “protrusion” + iii) “death/obstruction” + iv) “intelligence” = a “spermatozoon”.

            LQA’s argument then is a prime example of the texassharpshooter fallacy. He has deliberately chosen to fit his 4 anagrams into a description of a spermatozoon. In other words, rather than following where the evidence leads to, LQA selectively chooses his “evidences” to fit his preconceived conclusion. One could impose any number of concepts on to the 4 definitions.

6.2) The homunculus Counter-example

            In fact, due to the arbitrary nature, one could easily use LQA’s method to claim that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means a vast number of concepts including imaginary ones. For a simple example, consider the following. There used to be a theory called “preformationism” which stated there exists a homunculus i.e. a miniature human, in the seminal fluid which merely grows in size during the course of pregnancy.

            Would it now be possible to use LQA’s methodology and impose the outdated concept of a homunculus on to the 4 anagrams? This is quite easily achieved. A homunculus is implanted through i) “the movement of liquid with force”; it ii) “protrudes” out of the womb for delivery; faces the risk of iii) “death” and other “obstructions” during pregnancy” and of course it is an iv) “intelligent” creature.
           
            Thus, using LQA’s very own methodology, "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can refer to a homunculus, therefore "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) would mean a homunculus and therefore the Qur’an would be wrong. Fortunately for Muslims in this case, LQA’s reasoning is utterly asinine.

6.3) Reductio-ad-Absurdum

            In fact, the homunculus counter-example can be used to show that LQA’s method is illogical. Since LQA’s method gives rise to contradictory conclusions as "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) meaning a homunculus as well as a spermatozoon, it follows, via reductio-ad-absurdum, that LQA’s method is false.

iii) Empirical Objections

7) The argument equally applies to "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) signifying 'Seminal Fluid'.

            A rather hilarious point about LQA’s argument is that every single one of its premises can be used to justify the conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means “seminal fluid”. Consider, the four anagrams provided by LQA,


            Each of the 4 inferences LQA made from the 4 anagrams are equally applicable or relatable to the concept of seminal fluid. “Seminal fluid” is a “liquid moving with “force”, it “protrudes”, it “dies/decays”, faces “obstructions” in the body and transports cells that will develop into “intelligent” beings.

            Add to this point the fact that classical dictionaries like Lisan al-Arab specifically defines "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “seminal fluid”. Thus, even if one were to accept LQA’s methodology, it would still be more reasonable to accept the definition of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) as “seminal fluid”.

            On a side note, consider the following thought; 'X' and 'not X' cannot both be true. X then is not the best word to describe 'not-X'. Of all possible words, why would the word that was used and understood to mean “seminal fluid” be the best word to designate the meaning of 'sperm'?

8) The argument ignores relevant evidence.

            As noted before, LQA has ignored the entirety of evidences presented in EQMAN. The most important of which are the following statements from Lisan al-Arab where it defines "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) specifically as “seminal fluid”. For any reasonable person, such a direct example of the usage of "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) should outweigh any contrary retrospective anagram-guessing-games;


V. Conclusion

            Anyone who has taken the effort to deconstruct LQA’s contentions very easily receives the message that he is not a very competent thinker. As demonstrated in the previous two posts, there are often huge gaps in his argument that are blatantly visible for anyone with eyes to see. LQA, perhaps as a result of his lack of training in formal logic, is unable to distinguish between facts and assertions, deductions and assumptions, inferences and wishful thinking.  He also does not seem capable of seeing through his own prejudices and assumptions. More damaging, however, is his inability to analyze the logical validity of his arguments. Consequently and unsurprisingly, he is also incapable of deconstructing counter-arguments accurately.
           
            LQA’s present argument is one such cocktail of hidden over-generalizations, weak inferences and logical fallacies concocted on top of counter-arguments he failed to comprehend.

            Regardless, this post has sufficiently demonstrated that LQA relies on assertions without any proper or sensible justification. The claim that one could derive the meaning of a word through anagrams and arbitrary interpretations, all the while ignoring the established meanings, is desperate, disingenuous and pseudo-intellectual.

            Even if one were to hypothetically grant the validity of LQA’s anagram-guessing-game, one is still struck by its arbitrariness since LQA’s methodology can also be used to make words mean a vast number of concepts. For example, LQA’s methodology was used to show that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) can also refer to an outdated concept of the homunculus. This consequently also proves that LQA’s methodology is false via reductio-ad-absurdum.

            Additionally, LQA’s methodology can also be applied to the conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means seminal fluid. This conclusion would also be supported by the historical context as well academic lexicons of classical Arabic. Incidentally, LQA has consistently chosen to ignore the relevant evidences from academic lexicons presented in EQMAN.

            Overall, LQA’s argument is pointless and asinine. The only redeeming quality of having wasted one’s energy in refuting such a silly argument is the realization that Muslim apologists have hit absolute rock-bottom when they have to rely on anagrams and guesswork to argue for their position.




UPDATE 02/21/2014 - Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic has complained that I skipped over his "main ayah", verse 75:37, which he speaks about from 01:00 to 01:57 in his video. Skipping this argument in the post above was an oversight on my part for 2 reasons. The 2nd reason is that this wasn't the main argument of his video in my assessment. The 1st and mote important reason is that this argument had ALREADY been refuted in the original paper, EQMAN pages 16-23 (specifically 22-23)[7]. In fact, this was also pointed out directly to Nabeel in Objection 2 [3]. It remains to be seen how much longer Nabeel will continue to throw refuted arguments at me.







[1]. Wittgenstein, L  2009. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, Hacker & Schulte. Revised 4th edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Page 116e

[3]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 2 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-2-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

[4]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 3 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/10/objection-3-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

[5]. CaptainDisguise 2012. Objection 1 to Embryology in the Quran: Much Ado about Nothing. http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-1-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

[6]. QuranMiraclesRefuted 2013. Muslims against the "Science in the Qur'an" Claims. http://dawahganda.blogspot.com/2013/01/muslims-against-science-in-quran-claims.html   

[7]. Captaindisguise & Taverille, M 2012. Embryology in the Qur'an: Much Ado about Nothing. Page 6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/110224187/2-101612-Embryology-in-the-Quran-Much-Ado-About-Nothing  

[8].  Hamza Tzortzis 2013. Does the Qur’an contain Scientific Miracles. Page 4

20 comments :

  1. My sincere advice to Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic
    i) Learn to question your assumptions and prejudices.
    ii) Learn how to deconstruct counter-arguments.
    iii) Learn how to analyze the validity of an argument.
    iv) Learn about logical fallacies so that you can avoid them

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice try but you skipped over the main ayah in the Quran which refutes what you say:

    Quran 75:37 Had he not been a nutfah from semen ( manniy) emitted?

    for seminal fluid the Quran uses the word manniy. The Quran uses words perfectly compared to other work in the Arabic language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nice try but you skipped over the main ayah in the Quran which refutes what you say:
      Quran 75:37 Had he not been a nutfah from semen ( manniy) emitted?"

      Seriously? That was addressed 2 years ago in the original paper. Such an imbecile
      Here, http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com/2012/08/2-drop-of-fluid-nutfah.html

      In fact, it is you who is visibly ignoring all the evidences as explained in 3 blogspots already.

      Delete
  3. And you completely skipped the challenge I posed to you and other critics. To come up with a word in Arabic or any language that is more precise than "Nutfah" to describe the spermatozoon. One needs to take into consideration that this word needed to have existed 1400 years ago or earlier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you completely skipped what I said in objections 5,6 & 7 as to how you are asking a very senseless question.

      Its pretty obvious now that you have neither read the original paper and or any of the responses to you. That just shows how cowardly and insincere you are.

      Delete
    2. And as expected, you actually skipped over every objection and had to resort to repeating arguments that I debunked 2 years ago in the original paper that you have not even read.

      I guess you are a case of "ignorance is bliss" ... I guess it isn't possible to be Muslim without being ignorant and selective and arbitrary; much like your argument here.

      Delete
  4. I explained that the Quran usage of the word nutfah is precise in comparison to the way Arabs used the word. See this article for more details:

    http://understandingthequranmiracle.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/the-precision-of-quran-base-letters.html

    calling me ignorant and insincere doesn't make your arguments any more convincing to those who are able to use their own reason. You should know that name calling is a sign of defeated argument. And finally, you skipped over the challenge once again. i.e. to come up with a word that is better than Nutfah for the sperm cell. If you can't then just admit that you are not able to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I have demonstrated here that your methodology is circular, arbitrary, selective, generalized on top of many other problems. Again, read it.

      Calling you insincere and ignorant has nothing to do with my arguments since my arguments easily stand on their own merits. You are of course insincere, as I have already demonstrated in 3 blogposts, for misrepresenting my arguments, hiding my arguments from your audience, quote-mining me, and as seen today, you are asking me to address things that I debunked 2 years ago. You are ignorant of course for the number of fallacies in your arguments and the evidences you ignored that has also been demonstrated in the 3 posts; they are there for anyone with eyes to see.

      And I suppose you are gonna keep running in your circles. Your "challenge" has been addressed in 5,6&7 as meaningless. In fact, I am asking you to justify the objectivity of your "challenge" in those points. Oh but regardless, keep going with your fallacious reasoning.

      Delete
  5. The thing I didn't find strange in your paper ( and never have) is that the only time you actually spoke about Arabic and Quran usage of words, you made a massive blunder. سَيَّارَةٌ is a means used for traveling and comes from a root to mean " to travel" س ي ر e.g سَارَ = he traveled. سَيَّار a person who travels all the time. So the term caravan or car is based on context. If it was in the future it could refer to hovercrafts if such vehicles were readily used for travel. Also regarding letter arrangements, if one were to change the place of the raa and yaa we get the root س ر ي which means to travel by night. These are related meanings. Also the big point is we are talking about Quran usage. Where the word Nutfah has been specifically used for the sperm cell. The Quran uses the word Maniyy for seminal fluid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make 3 points in you comment;

      1) Meaning is based on context.
      2) You anagram-guessing-game is valid
      3) "The Quran uses the word Maniyy for seminal fluid."

      1) You say "So the term caravan or car is based on context. If it was in the future it could refer to hovercrafts if such vehicles were readily used for travel."

      That is precisely the point I am making, my friend.

      I am saying that your stubborn insistance that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), as used in the 7th century Qu'ran, means "spermatozoon" (despite all the evidences to the contrary that you consistently ignored) is as anachronistic as someone looking at the word “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) in the Qur'an and claiming it meant a modern car or a future hovercraft.

      Such an assertion would be false, even if you used your circular anagram-guessing-game and then fallaciously claimed “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) is the best 7th century Arabic word to signify a "car" or a "hovercraft". Likewise, for "نُطْفَة" (nutfah).

      So thanks for making my point.

      2) Regarding your anagram-guessing-game, even the websites discussing this matter state that it is not "a universal rule" and that there are "no rules, no systematic methodologies except those we impose ourselves, and no observations are to be taken as universally applicable regulations." This is as arbitrary and subjective as anything gets. You could use such a thing to make any claim (hence the pointlessness of your "challenge").

      Regardless, I am only going to quote what I have I already stated above, " While the topic of phonosemantics (the relation between sound and meaning) is an important question in linguistics and the origin of language, it is also important to keep in mind the view that language is a product of human usage and thus it is not entirely sensible to abstract language away into a world of formulas and theories; especially when this is done by ignoring the way in which the language is regularly used. LQA is guilty of such a pseudo-intellectual line of reasoning when he ignores how "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) was used in antiquity in favor or his anagram-guessing-game. To quote Wittgenstein again, “One cannot guess how a word functions. One has to look at its application and learn from that.”"

      Delete

    2. 3) Lastly, you keep repeating "The Quran uses the word Maniyy for seminal fluid." when I have already pointed out this was addressed in the original paper 2 years ago. Again, read it and address my arguments holistically.

      Let me quote a small part from the original paper relevant to this question;

      "Hamza’s next argument is regarding the verse 75:37 from the Qur'an ... Hamza’s aim here is to assert that “nutfah” does not mean semen (maniyy) and his reasoning is that the word “nutfah” appears separately from the word for semen (maniyy). The ultimate goal here is to establish that “nutfah” refers to a sperm or ovum ...

      ...Unfortunately for Hamza, this claim fails even before it can get a start. As already explained in refutation point (1), this very verse was listed in Lisan-al-Arab as an example of how the Arabs used “nutfah” to refer to semen (maniyy).

      Lisan-al-Arab: “semen (maniyy) is called “nutfah” because of its small amount. And in the revelation (Qur'an): Was he not a “nutfah” of/from semen (maniyy) ejaculated?”

      ... As discussed earlier, the accurate translation of this verse in the light of the information provided by the academic dictionaries is the following; “Was he not a small amount (“nutfah”) of semen (“maniyyin”) ejaculated?” ...

      ...it is still not clear what Hamza hoped to achieve with yet another one of his trivial mistranslations. Hamza seems to conclude from his mistranslated text of Ibn Kathir that, “the nutfah is a substance from semen” therefore “nutfah” is not semen. Yet Hamza gives no explanation as to why “nutfah” being a substance from semen would mean that “nutfah” is not semen. It is like saying a pizza slice is a substance from a pizza therefore a pizza slice is not pizza. The only difference here is regarding the quantity of semen or pizza which is of no relevance to any and all of Hamza’s arguments."

      Again, I have only quoted a small part. Read the whole thing and address my arguments with consistency, sincerity and transparency. If not, by all means stay deluded and in denial. Good Luck

      Delete
    3. * NOTE: I even pointed this, about verse 75:37, to Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic in objection 2 as well (that he was repeating arguments that I had already refuted).

      http://captaindisguise.blogspot.com/2012/09/objection-2-to-embryology-in-quran-much.html

      I can only wonder how many more time he will keep asking to address points I already have.

      Delete
  6. And as expected, Nabeel al-Khalidy aka LearnQuranicArabic has censored the comments I left on his blog (the same was the case 2 years ago). And yet he still quibbles over why I think he is insincere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have never censured any of your comments because I am not threatened by them in any way. If your comments were not accepted it was probably recognized as spam. tell me which blog and I'll accept it. Any way, I totally destroyed your point 5 argument which was the point of my video presentation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh ..going to the beginning where you deleted my comments (as well as others who challenged you) on your video, and on your 2 blogposts, one in the beginning, the other recently. If you wanted to publish them, they would already be there since they can be seen (even if they are marked spam) in the comments page on your blogger sidebar.

      Regardless, of course, there is no reason to be threatened by words & arguments even if they do prove you wrong. You should simply accept your mistakes and move on (you can learn from Hamza Tzortzis in this instance)

      Yet, you are the one who originally made a video where you attacked a strawman of my argument, removed any reference to my work, consistently repeated arguments I had already refuted and thus suggesting you didn't have the courage to even understand what my arguments were. Even here, I refute your comments over and over again and you are unable to show the nerve to follow up. Even you using the word "threatening" feels like a Freudian slip. You may want to say that you don't feel "threatened" but as far as it can be seen, your actions speak otherwise.

      Anyways, you think you "destroyed" point 5. How? Where? In case you still don't get it, an assertion does not equal an argument.

      Esp., given my point 5 was demonstrating your "challenge" was arbitrary and meaningless. If you were to destroy it you would have had to outline the objectivity of your challenge which you clearly haven't.

      If on the other hand you are referring merely to the "caravan/car" analogy, see comment below. Peace

      Delete
  8. You said "Would it now be reasonable to claim that the Qur’an was mentioning a “car” instead of a “caravan” in the ancient deserts of the Middle East or North Africa? Likewise, LQA’s attempt to do the same with "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) is equally unreasonable."

    Not a good comparison. A means of transportation that existed thousands of years ago will ultimately change. How man is created has never changed throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not a good comparison. A means of transportation that existed thousands of years ago will ultimately change. How man is created has never changed throughout history."

      I see your confusion (not that unreasonable this time). You interpretation of the analogy can be seen as merely an "empirical comparison".

      However, what I was explaining was an "epistemological comparison" i.e. a comparison of your methodology by which you give meanings to the words. (Hence in the section on epistemology)

      There is this word "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) in the Qur'an. All the evidence overwhelmingly support the conclusion that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) refers to "seminal fluid" as per an ancient understanding. Yet, you come along and arbitrarily assign "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) the meaning of "sperm" (you could have said it means zygote or DNA or anything else that suits your fancy). And the only "evidence" you are able to present are extremely weak inferences + your circular letter-play-guesswork; "evidence" that is so arbitrary & selective that it can be used to make any claim anyone wants.

      This again is an illogical methodology (es explained in point 6). The “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) analogy is meant to showcase the ridiculousness of this methodology of yours.

      There is this word “sayyara” (“ سَيَّارَةٌ”) in the Qur'an. All the evidence (the historical context for ex,) would suggest it means a caravan (or some ancient transport). Yet, you COULD come along (the same way you did for "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), and claim that it means a modern "car" (or a future hovercraft). You COULD use extremely weak inferences + your circular anagram-guessing-game to claim this is the actual meaning; which due to the arbitrariness of your argument should be very easy to do.

      Thus, your methodology can be arbitrarily used to make such claims as there were hovercrafts in ancient egypt or Arabia. You COULD then claim, much like you did with "نُطْفَة" (nutfah), that it is a "miracle" that Allah gave hovercrafts to bedouins and that it proves the Qur'an is a miracle or some nonsense along those line. (Perhaps you could also join such thinkers as Giorgio Tsoukalos on the Ancient Aliens)

      That is the epistemological comparison I am bringing to the table.

      Just because you, in the 21st century, know better than the ancients that the Quran would be more accurate if "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) meant "sperm" (or zygote or DNA or whatever else you fancy) is NOT a basis for you to claim that it DOES mean "sperm" or anything else. And as demonstrated in the 3 posts already, you were only able to rely on fallacious arguments + suppressed information to anachronistically claim that "نُطْفَة" (nutfah) means "sperm"; where as I am able to directly use the ancient texts to make my case. If you ever acquire the intellectual courage, think about that for a moment. Ma' Salama

      Delete
  9. I'm still waiting for a word that is better than Nutfah to describe the sperm cell.

    ReplyDelete
  10. > Nabeel Alkhalidy: I'm still waiting for a word that is better than Nutfah to describe the sperm cell.

    ... and I suppose I will have to wait forever for you to either make sense or at the very least read what I have already demonstrated.

    At the banal expense of repeating myself for the sake of your inability to comprehend what has already been demonstrated; my post and my subsequent comments to you above have refuted your claim "nutfah is the best word to describe the sperm cell" by showing the fallacies in your argument.

    Hence, it is an utter non-sequitur for you to ask for a word that is "better". Moreover and more importantly, given that the concept of a sperm cell did not exist in antiquity, there is NO WORD to describe it and consequently to even speak of the "best" or "worst" word is in itself incoherent as words get their meaning from usage or coined definitions; neither of which exists for the idea of a sperm cell in 7th century. Hence, there is no "best" word for a sperm cell in the 7th century because there was NO word in the 7th century for a sperm cell. It is analogous to asking what is the best way in the 7th century to backup one's laptop. The question itself is incoherent.

    Now I'll wait again for that simple idea to completely fly over your head and I'll see you in a few months asking the same question. Sincere advice, at least make an effort to be a bit more intellectually honest.

    ReplyDelete